state regulation passes test in California

2013If there is substantial impairment, the court must next 11 ask whether there is a ‘significant and legitimate public purpose’ behind the state regulation at issue. [Citation.] If the state regulation passes that test, the final inquiry is whether means by which the regulation acts are of a ‘character appropriate’ to the public purpose identified in step two.” (Id. at pp. 1054–1055, citing Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light (1983) 459 U.S. 400, 412 .) Applying the first step, we conclude that there is no impairment, as MICRA and related statutes were necessarily incorporated into any

2013If there is substantial impairment, the court must next ask whether there is a ‘significant and legitimate public purpose’ behind the state regulation at issue. [Citation.] If the state regulation passes that test, the final inquiry is whether means by which the regulation acts are of a ‘character appropriate’ to the public purpose identified in step two.” (Id. at pp. 1054–1055, citing Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light (1983) 459 U.S. 400, 412 .) There can be no question that the elimination of a “for cause” standard is a substantial impairment.

2013(Mendoza v. Regents of University of California (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 168, 175 [“It is, of course, widely recognized that if the employee is subject to discharge only for cause, he has a property interest which is entitled to constitutional protection”]; accord, Brown, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 172 ; Vernon Fire Fighters Assn. v. City of Vernon (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 710, 722 .) Moreover, the League offered evidence in the form of declarations from several officers who averred that they accepted their advanced pay grade positions with the understanding that they would be subject to the good c

2008Assn. v. Blaisdell *585 (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 431 [ 78 L.Ed. 413 , 54 S.Ct. 231 ].) For instance, a law that discharged a debtor from liability was held invalid as applied to contracts in existence when the law was passed. {Ibid.) The Legislature has applied the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (§ 1350 et seq.) “both prospectively and to existing documents.” (2 Sproul & Rosenberry, supra, § 9.47, p. 693.) To any extent the reduction in the percentage of affirmative votes required to amend CC&R’s may be said to substantially impair preexisting contract rights, there is no unconstit

2008Assn. v. Blaisdell *585 (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 431 [ 78 L.Ed. 413 , 54 S.Ct. 231 ].) For instance, a law that discharged a debtor from liability was held invalid as applied to contracts in existence when the law was passed. {Ibid.) The Legislature has applied the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (§ 1350 et seq.) “both prospectively and to existing documents.” (2 Sproul & Rosenberry, supra, § 9.47, p. 693.) To any extent the reduction in the percentage of affirmative votes required to amend CC&R’s may be said to substantially impair preexisting contract rights, there is no unconstit

2008If there is substantial impairment, the court must next ask whether there is a ‘significant and legitimate public purpose’ behind the state regulation at issue. [Citation.] If the state regulation passes that test, the final inquiry is whether means by which the regulation acts are of a ‘character appropriate’ to the public purpose identified in step two.” (Barrett v. Dawson (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1054-1055 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 899 ].) The same analysis is applicable to the state Constitution’s contract clause. ( 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1056 .) “The obligations of a contract are impaired by a la

2008If there is substantial impairment, the court must next ask whether there is a ‘significant and legitimate public purpose’ behind the state regulation at issue. [Citation.] If the state regulation passes that test, the final inquiry is whether means by which the regulation acts are of a ‘character appropriate’ to the public purpose identified in step two.” (Barrett v. Dawson (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1054-1055 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 899 ].) The same analysis is applicable to the state Constitution’s contract clause. ( 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1056 .) “The obligations of a contract are impaired by a la